6:30 am Back to ancient Greece. This morning I plan to make a few notes on the last couple of chapters of the book Ancient Greece.

There is something almost funny about reading the chapter on the Peloponnesian war. I am aware that almost everything we know about that period is due to Thucydides, which I have just read. On the other hand, such a secondary source gives me a chance to read someone else's notes.

"This bitter conflict, extraordinary in Greek history for its protracted length, wreaked havoc on the social and political harmony of Athens, sapped its economic strength, decimated its population, and turned upside down the everyday life of most of its citizens." (p. 147)

What is history? The question is beginning to raise its head.

Why do we study the Peloponessian war? In large part, because there is a relatively complete description of it.

Why do we only have a couple of pages on Alexander the Great. In large part, because we do not have a detailed contemporary record of it.

Why do we discuss Plato and Aristotle at some length. Because of we have many of their writings. But this is not the whole story. There is also genuine interest in their writings. They make the reader think. Even Thucydides makes one think. It is not the chronological sequence of the events that keeps the reader's attention, it is the arguments for and against various strategies as revealed in the speeches. Alexander doesn't make one think. At least not a lot. It is interesting to ask how one person could accomplish so much in such a short time, but the history of such accomplishments usually turns out to be a record of some new tactic (usually technological) that gives one side an overwhelming advantage over the other. In the case of Alexander it was the use of very long spears, combined with a phalanx strategy. In the case of the Battle of Marathon, it was the phalanx combined with superior weaponry and defensive shields and armour. Similar comments apply to the Spaniards in the new world, notably Pizzaro and Cortez. Also to Hitler using tanks and a blitzkrieg strategy. Desert Storm with superior air power and radar. Short, decisive wars are due to superior technology for one side. Long protracted wars are likely when the sides are on equal footing. In this case there are no winners, only losers.

How does one write about wars and battles? Almost always in terms of the combatants. What were the major battles, who were the key leaders and figures? What receives little attention is the context and setting of the war. What is the effect on the non-combatants, the citizenry, the women and children, the merchants, the farmers, the craftsmen, the writers?

We obtain a glimpse of this in Homer's The Odyssey. We do obtain a fairly complete description of Penelope and her suiters and of the effect on Telemachus, her son. It is easy to extrapolate to other homes where the husband has gone to war, perhaps never to return. The effect on those not involved in the battle can be at least, if not more so, traumatic and long lasting. This is not captured, it is hardly mentioned, by Thucydides. There is mention of the hardships of the Athenians during the plague and of the effect of the country folk watching their farms being burned by the Spartans, but it is a very light treatment. Similar comments apply to most histories of the Second World War. The ratio of words written about the armies and battles to the words written about the citizenry - both in occupied countries as well as in countries like Canada and the US is noticable. Also, who does most of the writing? Victorious men.

Still, history is about the past, and the events that occurred then. For me, this is the skeleton. It is the framework that allows me to situate the events. I  know that the Peloponnesian war came before Alexander's conquests, and even that the former may have been in large part responsible for the latter since it so weakened the Greek states that the Macedonian armies had little difficulty in overcoming them and then embarking on a series of further conquests.

Given this historical skeleton, where is the meat? What is attached to the skeleton? What are the sinews that help hold it all together? Where is the heart? What gives the organism its vitality? Is this all there is to history - a never ending series of battles and wars? Where does the alphabet fit into this history, or the development of mathematics? Medicine? Science? Literature - the plays of Aristophanes, of Aeschylus and Sophocles. The music of Mozart? The parables of Jesus, the Buddha, and Mohammed? The poetry of Robert Frost, or Robert Service? What is the role of the family, the church, the business, the market palace, the neighborhood, schools, colleges, universities? The Olympics? Television? The Internet? The telephone. The automobile? Paper? Small towns and large urban cities? This could be a very long list. And rightly so. Life is complex. To suggest otherwise is to miss the point. And complexity provides richness beyond belief or comprehension. We are so fortunate. Life is good.

What a grand morning! I began by attempting to summarize some notes on the Peloponnesian war and ended up ruminating about history. Great sport. Mornings are definitely the best time for me, for learning. The mind is unfettered by the practical necessities of work.

I will return to some notemaking later. Now I just want to sip my coffee.